Granato v. People, 13756.
| Decision Date | 12 August 1935 |
| Docket Number | 13756. |
| Parties | GRANATO v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1935.
In Department.
Error to District Court, Adams County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.
Salvatore Granato was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Joel E. Stone, of Denver, and J. Paul Hill, of Brighton, for plaintiff in error.
Paul P Prosser, Atty. Gen., and Walter F. Scherer, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.
Salvatore Granato, a young man 22 years of age, was charged, under C L. § 6689(1), with the statutory rape of a girl 16 years of age. He was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary. He seeks a reversal of the judgment.
The girl, whom we shall refer to as L, and another girl testified in detail to the commission of the offense. A disinterested witness, an officer of the Bureau of Child and Animal Protection, testified that, when charged in the presence of L with having committed the offense, he admitted it, but said: 'We asked the girls how old they were and they said 19.' After the matter was placed in the hands of the officer of the bureau, the defendant offered to pay L one-half of what his attorney's fee would be, if she would settle out of court, but she refused the offer. At the trial the defendant denied that he had sexual intercourse with L.
The defendant does not contend that the evidence was not sufficient to support the judgment, but claims that the court erred in admitting certain evidence and in giving an instruction.
1. It is said that the court erroneously admitted evidence tending to show that the defendant committed an offense other than the one for which he was being tried. The evidence for the people was to the effect that on the night in question the defendant and another young man, whom we shall refer to as R, took L and another young girl, whom we shall refer to as E, for a ride in an automobile having only one seat; that all four sat on that seat; that, when they reached a secluded place, R pulled E out of the car; that the defendant aided him in so doing; that the defendant prevented L from aiding E when R was attempting to pape E, and said, that, unless E permitted R to have intercourse with her, he would help R accomplish his purpose and would himself have intercourse with E; that, after E was removed from the car, the defendant had sexual intercourse with L without her consent, using force to accomplish his purpose. Counsel for the defendant complain that the evidence concerning the action of the defendant in aiding R tended to show that the defendant committed an independent crime; namely, that of aiding and abetting R in the commission of a crime. The court did not err in receiving the evidence. The defendant aided R to remove E from the car so that he (the defendant) could have the use of the car in accomplishing his own criminal purpose. The evidence related to facts that constituted an inseparable part of the entire transaction. Moreover, it was introduced without objection; hence the defendant is not entitled to urge the objection in this court.
2. Another assignment is that the court erred in admitting the evidence concerning R.'s misconduct with E. The assignment is without merit. From the people's evidence, which the jury, by their verdict, found to be true, it is apparent that, when the two men, acting in concert, induced the two girls, both under 18 years of age, to accompany them in the automobile, they had the common intent and design to debauch the girls, and that they succeeded in accomplishing their purpose. In receiving the evidence of the entire transaction, the court did not err. Besides, no objection was made to the introduction of the evidence; so the defendant is in no position to urge the objection at this time.
3. Counsel for the defendant complain of the admission in evidence of the details of the complaint made by L to a Mrs. Gustafson. Evidence of the details should not have been received. Donaldson v. People, 33 Colo. 333, 80 P. 906, 907. But the defendant waived the right to urge the objection here by not making the proper objection to the evidence when it was introduced. Donaldson v. People, supra. Moreover, L made complaint to the officer of the bureau. It contained all of the details. It was read over to the defendant in L's presence, and the defendant thereupon admitted that he had sexual intercourse with L. Such evidence was properly admitted. The admission of the complaint made to Mrs. Gustafson, containing, as it did, but few details, was harmless in view of the complaint to the officer, which complaint was properly Before the jury.
4. L testified that the defendant's father mother brother, uncle, and anut wanted her to go to their lawyer,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Huff Energy Fund, L.P. v. Longview Energy Co.
-
Kurtz v. People
...there is no error. Gallegos v. People, 157 Colo. 484, 403 P.2d 864; Allison v. People, 109 Colo. 295, 125 P.2d 146; Granato v. People, 97 Colo. 303, 49 P.2d 431. VII. Barney Black, Chief of Police at Del Norte, who arrived on the scene shortly after the aborted burglary, testified for the s......
-
Gallegos v. People
...other, a matter conceivably advantageous to the two Gallegoses. Certainly these disparities could not aid the prosecution. Granato v. People, 97 Colo. 303; 49 P.2d 431. See Tashima v. State, 58 Colo. 98, 144 P. 200; Allison v. People, 109 Colo. 295, 125 P.2d Such portions of the exhibit as ......
-
People v. Montague, 25274
...seriousness of the charge and the difficulties of prosecution as told to the prosecutrix are never admissible in evidence. Granato v. People, 97 Colo. 303, 49 P.2d 431. Donaldson v. People, 33 Colo. 333, 80 P. The trial court also erred when it refused to give an instruction setting forth t......